sign in sign up
<<
Home , British English, Fronting (sound change), Scouse

ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE IPA English

Kevin Watson Department of Linguistics and Lancaster University [email protected]

Liverpool English (LE) is the variety of English spoken in Liverpool and much of the surrounding county of , in the north-west of . After , the north- west of England is the most densely populated of all regions in England and Wales, with the population of Liverpool standing at around 450,000. LE itself is said to have developed in the middle of the 19th century, after rapid immigration from during the Irish potato famines of 1845–1847 (see Knowles 1973). Arguably as a result of this immigration, as will see, there are some similarities between LE’s phonological system and those of Irish Englishes. Of course, as we might expect, the phonological system of LE maintains its connection with other northern Englishes, too. There is a greater amount of previous work on LE than on many other accents of English, particularly other varieties of the north-west of the country. The earliest systematic study of LE, Knowles (1973), remains the seminal work and is where the widest range of phonological features is considered. Later work, including De Lyon (1981), Honeybone (2001), Sangster (2001) and Watson (2006, 2007), has tended to restrict its focus to a smaller number of variables which are amongst the variety’s most characteristic features. This article bases most of its descriptive detail on data gathered during fieldwork carried out by the author (see Watson 2007), but at times information is gleaned from elsewhere (most notably Knowles’ early work) to provide comparison. The transcription of the reading passage is based on the speech of a 21-year-old working- class female speaker who was born in the district of Netherton, in the north of Liverpool, and has always lived there. self-identifies as having a ‘broad’ Liverpool accent, although the difficulty in remaining objective about such labels should be acknowledged. There is considerable phonetic variation in LE according to age, gender and socioeconomic class, although this is an area where modern research is lacking. In what follows, where the speaker produces some phonetic feature which is known to be atypical of LE or where a feature varies according to some sociolinguistic parameter, this will be pointed out.

Consonants Whilst the system of LE is phonologically identical to most other varieties of English English, there is much allophonic variability. Of course, this is to be expected in every variety, but as we will see, the realisational potential of certain LE phonemes is much greater than elsewhere.

Journal of the International Phonetic Association (2007) 37/3 C International Phonetic Association doi:10.1017/S0025100307003180 Printed in the 352 Journal of the International Phonetic Association: Illustrations of the IPA

Labio- Post- Bilabial dental Dental Alveolar alveolar Palatal Velar Glottal Plosive pb td kg tS dZ Nasal m n N fv TD sz SZ Approximant j w Lateral l approximant

Dental /T, D/ are often realised as dental stops [t,1 d1] both word-initially, medially and finally, although dental fricatives are also found. This is arguably a feature which has been innovated into LE from varieties of Irish (Honeybone 2004). has recently been suggested that TH-fronting, the process by which /T, D/ are realised as labiodental fricatives [f, v] and which is frequent in many other British varieties (e.g. Milton Keynes, Reading, Hull (Williams & Kerswill 1999), Newcastle (Watt & Milroy 1999)), is infrequent in LE (Watson 2005). The speaker can be heard using both standard fricative variants ([T]innorth,[D]in other) and the more localised dental stop ([d1]inthen). She does not use a labiodental variant. Post-vocalic /r/ is absent in LE, so that words like , farm, park are r-less. In pre- vocalic and intervocalic positions, /r/ is typically realised as [®]or[|]. The tap is common in intervocalic position (e.g. mi[|]or, ve[|]y) but can also occur when /r/ follows an onset obstruent (e.g. st[|]ip, b[|]eath, f[|]ee). The speaker’svariety is somewhat atypical of basilectal Liverpool English in this respect, as she uses the standard variant [®] in all positions (e.g. ag[®]eed, a[®]ound, st[®]onger). The tapped realisation of /r/ is not categorically absent from her repertoire, however, as she uses [|] as the linking /r/instronger[|] of the two.The labiodental variant, [√], is not a feature of LE, despite it spreading in other accents of (Foulkes & Docherty 2000). LE is similar to other accents in the north of England in that the /g/inng clusters is maintained. For example, the speaker realises along as [´lÅNg]. In the -ing morpheme, forms with the velar nasal and plosive are found, as in singing [sINgINg], but a realisation of [´n] is also likely (e.g. sing[´n], walk[´n]). The speaker uses [´n]forthe-ing of making. Another similarity between LE and elsewhere is the dropping of /h/, most often in high frequency grammatical words (e.g. the speaker’s realisation of him, who, his). H-dropping is not categorical, however, as the speaker’s maintenance of [h]inmore blew testifies. /h/is frequently maintained in lexical words (e.g. as it is in the speaker’s hard). It is in the system of plosives where the widest range of phonetic variation is attested. As in other varieties of English, voiceless plosives /p, t, k/ are aspirated in word-initial position, except when following syllable initial /s/. /p, t, k/ can also be aspirated in word-final and utterance-final positions (Knowles 1973, Watson 2007). The voiceless stops are frequently realised with noticeable utterance-finally, which might manifest itself either as a period of glottal noise or as oral frication which is produced homorganically to the stop. As is the case in Newcastle (see e.g. Docherty & Foulkes 1999), preaspiration in Liverpool English is primarily the domain of female speakers (Watson 2007). As well as these aspirated and preaspirated variants, there is an additional range of plosive realisations which are more or less unique to Liverpool. Most of these realisations can be described as processes of – a term frequently used to group together a series of phonological weakenings which turn underlying plosives into and fricatives (see e.g. Lass 1984; Harris 1990, 1994; Honeybone 2002). Indeed, plosive lenition is arguably one of the most characteristic features of Liverpool English, and one which forms a major part of the variety’s stereotype. Kevin Watson: Liverpool English 353

For /t/, affrication is common word-initially, whilst spirantisation is common in intervocalic and word-final positions. The speaker uses an affricated /t/ in word-initial position in two (see figure 1). She spirantises /t/ as well, but there are a limited number of potential candidates in the reading passage due to phonological environment restrictions. The presence of sibilant fricatives for /t/ does not to the loss of phonological contrast with /s/. Honeybone (2001) transcribes lenited /t/as[D] which, following Pandeli et al. (1997), implies a fricative with a flat cross-sectional tongue shape (signaled by [T]) at a precisely alveolar place of articulation (signaled by the double-underscore diacritic which is adapted from the ‘extended IPA’ used in the transcription of disordered speech). There are durational differences, too, with a longer phonetic fricative for /s/ than for /t/ (Sangster 2001). Recent work has suggested that there is a wide range of possibilities of ‘stopless /t/’, which can all be described as fricatives, but which are all articulated with varying degrees of approximation (Watson 2007). Rather than these realisations being the result of articulatory undershoot, there is evidence that fine-grained phonetic differences provide indexical information in LE, as have been found to do elsewhere (see e.g. Docherty & Foulkes 1999 for Newcastle, and Jones & Llamas 2003 for Middlesbrough). Thus, these realisations represent the learned articulatory behaviour of the speakers (Docherty & Foulkes 2000, Foulkes & Docherty 2006). For example, LE /t/ for male speakers is often realised as the [T] described above, but for female /t/ the relationship between the oral and glottal gesture is more variable, so that realisations such as [hsh] are common. An example of a preaspirated, postaspirated fricative /t/ is provided in figure 2. Space restrictions inhibit detailed discussion of these realisations in this illustration, but see Watson (forthcoming) for a more detailed examination. As well as realising /t/ as an oral fricative, it can also be debuccalised to [h]. In older speakers, this occurs only in pre-pausal position in a small set of high frequency monosyllabic (pseudo)function words with short (e.g. it [Ih], what [wÅh], not [nÅh], that [d1ah], lot [lÅh]). For younger speakers, the realisation of /t/as[h] can also occur in polysyllabic words which end in an unstressed syllable (e.g. market [ma…xIh], maggot [magIh], aggregate [ag|IgIh]). As the debuccalisation of /t/ does not occur in any other variety of north-western English, it has been suggested that the extension of the process to polysyllabic words is an innovation which represents phonological divergence from supralocal norms (Watson 2006, 2007). Because pre-pausality is a conditioning environment for the realisation of /t/as[h], there are no potential candidates in the reading passage. Connected to the realisation of /t/ as [h], in terms of the environments in which it occurs, is the realisation of /t/ as a rhotic (typically [®] but also [|]). /t/ → [®]and/t/ → [h] can occur in a similar sets of monosyllabic words, but whereas pre-pausality is necessary for the realisation as [h], the conditioning factor for [®] is the presence of a following (e.g. get off [gE®Åf], that apple [d1a®ap´l], lot of [lÅ®´v]). The realisation of /t/as[®] is not unique to Liverpool English, but can be found in a range of northern English varieties (see e.g. Wells 1982). Like for /t/ → [h], the tightly constrained phonological environment in which /t/ → [®] occurs means it is not produced by the speaker in the passage. The final realisation of /t/ is one which is very frequent in just about all varieties of British English; the realisation of /t/as[/]. Early accounts of LE noted that the was rare (Knowles 1973), and more recent work has corroborated this (Watson 2005, 2006, 2007). Knowles (1973) does comment, however, that [/] is possible preceding /l/ or other syllabic . The speaker can be heard using [/]indisputing [dIspju…/n]and` immediately [Imi…di´/li…]. It is also common for speakers to realise /k/ as an affricate or a fricative, too, as the speaker’s various tokens of cloak testify. The exact place of articulation of the fricative is mostly conditioned by to the preceding vowel. That is, palatal fricatives can be found following the close front monophthong […] and closing [ei, ai] (e.g. week [wi…ç], like [laiç]), and more dorsal fricatives are attested following low and back vowels (e.g. back [bax], [dÅX]). These dorsal fricatives can be velar or uvular. Fricativisation of /p/ also occurs, typically to [F], but this is much less frequent than that of /t/or/k/. 354 Journal of the International Phonetic Association: Illustrations of the IPA

Figure 1 An affricated /t/ (circled) in word-initial position in the speaker’s production of the word ‘two’. Kevin Watson: Liverpool English 355

Figure 2 A preaspirated, postaspirated sibilant fricative (circled) for /t/ in pre-pausal out. The speaker was a 15-year-old working-class female (Watson 2007). 356 Journal of the International Phonetic Association: Illustrations of the IPA

Figure 3 Realisation of /d/as[D] (circled) in the speaker’s production of the pre-pausal word could. Kevin Watson: Liverpool English 357

Phonetic fricatives are also found for the voiced plosives /b, d, g/, although of these the lenition of /d/ is by far the most common. Because final-devoicing is common in LE, as it is in other varieties of English, the fricative realisations of /b, d, g/ are rarely voiced in final position. As with the lenited variant of /t/ described above, that of /d/ does not result in neutralisation with //. Instead, the fricative is articulated with a flat cross-sectional tongue shape which is not unlike the fricative variant of /t/ described above. The speaker does not affricate or fricativise /b/or/g/, but /d/ is realised as a fricative in could (see figure 3). In the transcription that follows, taking Pandeli et al.’s (1997) lead, I transcribe the fricative variant of /d/as[D], with the caveat that it is frequently devoiced.

Vowels

Figure 4 Vowel trapeziums of monophthongs and diphthongs in Liverpool English. i… heed eI hay I hid aI high e… heard (also hair, her) boy E head E0 hoe a had aU how A… hard ([a…] also used) iE beer Å hod … hoard 0… who’d (also book) U hood ´ about

The similarities between the vowels of Liverpool English and those of other northern English varieties are numerous. The distinction between [Ø]and[U] that is found in accents of southern England (and elsewhere, e.g. in varieties of English outside the ) is not found in LE. Thus, words such as foot, put, butcher, bus and putt all have [U]. Similarly like other accents in the north, LE has the short [a] in words such as bath, dance,andgrass, where southern English varieties have the longer [A…]. As might be expected, there is complex sociolinguistic patterning here. According to Knowles (1973, 1978), the lack of distinction between /Ø, U/ and the use of the short [a] in bath words is most robust in working-class speakers, with some middle-class speakers modifying towards higher prestige RP-like norms. Knowles (1978: 358 Journal of the International Phonetic Association: Illustrations of the IPA

86) suggests that this differentiation often to hypercorrection, with speakers sometimes producing utterances such as good luck [gØdlUk]andblack castle [blA…k kœsl]. Some middle- class speakers may have a [Ø]∼[U] type contrast by using a more centralised, schwa-like variant for one of the pair of vowels (e.g. good luck [gUdl´k]). Although the long [A…] is not used for bath words, it is used in words such as start and palm, as it is elsewhere England. In Liverpool, however, for some speakers the quality of the vowel is often more front, resembling [a…] (e.g. start [sta…T], shark [Sa…x]). Recent work has suggested that this fronter variant is used mostly by male speakers, with female speakers preferring the back variant [A…] (Watson 2005). The speaker follows this pattern, using [A…]inhard. For many speakers of LE, there is a lack of contrast between the vowel in words like square, hair, and that in words like nurse, her. Typically, both sets have a front variant such as [e…]or[E…], or even [I…]. De Lyon (1981) establishes no less than 18 different realisations for the vowel in square words, ranging from [E´]to[‰™]to[‰…], and lists 15 different forms of the vowel for nurse words, including [‰], [´E]and[{]. It is not clear from de Lyon (1981), however, whether these variants pattern in sociolinguistically structured ways, as their distribution is not successfully quantified. It could be, for example, that the variation is more a result of phonological environment than any sociolinguistic patterning, but more research is required to investigate this further. According to Knowles (1973), middle class speakers are more likely to have an RP-like distinction between nurse and square words, using [‰…]and something like [E…] respectively. In the passage, the speaker uses a close front variant [I…]in first. As with other accents in the north of England, words such as book, cook and look typically have a long vowel in Liverpool rather than the short [U] found elsewhere. The long vowel is typically produced in an advanced position, most frequently as a central [0] but also as a fully front [y]. This results in minimal pairs such as look [l0…k]/luck [lUk], and book [b0…k]/buck [bUk]. The use of [0…]inlook words occurs more often in the working class than the middle class for Knowles’ (1973) speakers, but recent work has suggested that this feature is recessive, occurring less frequently in younger people (Watson 2005). The vowel in e.g. goose and hoop, is also typically articulated in an advanced position. The speaker produces an advanced variant in blew and two. Perhaps the biggest difference between Liverpool English vowels and those of many other northern English varieties is that Liverpool English has diphthongs in words like face [feIs] and goat [gE0t]. Diphthongs are also used in choice [tSOIs], price [p®aIs]andmouth [maUT], as they are elsewhere. For some speakers the vowel in price can monophthongise before certain consonants (e.g. time [ta…m], five [fa…v]) but this has not yet been systematically investigated. There is also variation in the vowel of goat, which most typically has a fronted onset and offset (e.g. E0) but can also be realised as [eU, EU, ´0, e0] or the more standard [´U].

Stress and intonation Previous work on LE intonation is minimal. Only Knowles (1973) has provided a systematic auditory investigation of prosodic issues, although more recent acoustic work is underway (Grabe 2004, Grabe, Kochanski & Coleman 2005). Knowles (1973) argues that LE pitch range is narrower than other varieties of English, and that this makes the distinction of tones difficult to detect. However, LE is known to have intonational similarities to other northern English accents, and also to share features with varieties of Irish English. For example, Knowles (1973: 188) refers to a which he calls the step, in which a high level tone follows the initial rise. This is comparable to the RISE-PLATEAU which is one of the most common tones in Belfast English (Grabe et al. 2005). More systematic investigation is required if we are to understand the relationship between the prosodic system of LE and that of other English varieties. Kevin Watson: Liverpool English 359

Transcription of recorded passage Two transcriptions are provided. The first uses the phonemic symbols outlined above, whilst the second is a narrower phonetic transcription that focuses specifically on the pronunciation of the speaker and demonstrates some of the variation that has been encountered throughout this illustration.

Phonemic transcription D´ nO…TwInd´nD´sUnw´dIspj0…t´n wItS w´z D´ strÅNg´ wEn ´ trav´l´ keIm ´lÅNg rapt In ´ wO…mklE0k DeI ´gri…d Dat D´ wÅn 0… fe…st sUksi…d´d In meIk´n D´ trav´l´ teIk Iz klE0kÅfSUdbi… k´nsId´d strÅNg´ Dan Di… UD´ ´n DEn D´ nO…TwIndbl0… ´z hA…d´zi… kUdbUtD´mO… hi… bl0… D´ mO… klE0sli dId D´ trav´l´ fE0ld Iz klE0k´raUnd Im ´nd at last D´ nO…TwIndgeIvUpDi… ´tEmpt DEn D´ sUn SaInd aUtwO…mli ´n Imi…dI´tli D´ trav´l´ tUkIzklE0kÅf´nsE0 D´ nO…T wInd w´z ´blaIdZd t´ k´nfEs Dat D´ sUnw´zD´strÅNg´´vD´t0…

Phonetic transcription D´ nO…TwIndn` ´6 sUmw´dIspj0…/m` wItS w´z9 Dst®ÅôNg´™ wEn ´ tS®avl´ kÓeIm ´lÅôNg ®ap}t In ´ wO…mkÓlE0x™ d1eI gri…d1 Dat} D´ wÅn 0… fI…s Uksi…dz Im meIç´n1 ´ tS®avl´ tseIçIzklE0xÅfSUb} bi kÓn`sId´d stS®ÅôN´ Dn` Di… UD´ ´n d1En1 ´nO…T z wIm blu… ´z hA…D= ´z i… kÓUD= bUt1 d1´mO… hi… blu… D´ mO… kÓl´9 0sli… d Id1 D´ tS®avl´ z s s f´ulD=… kÓlE0x™ ´raUnd m` ´n a/ las D´ nO…TwINgIvUpDi… ´t Emp}t d1En1 ´sUn s Sa…Ind aUp} wO…mli… an ´mi…D= ´/l 0 i…0 D´ tS®avl´9 t Ux´zkÓlE0x™ Åf n` sE0 D´ nO…T wIm w´z ´blaIZ( ´kÓn`fEs D´/ D´ sUm´z… sStrÅNg´| ´v9 D´ ts0…

Acknowledgements With thanks to Patrick Honeybone and Paul Kerswill for their comments on a draft of this illustration.

References DE LYON, H. (1981). A Sociolinguistic Study of Aspects of the Liverpool Accent. M.Phil. dissertation, University of Liverpool. DOCHERTY,G.J.&FOULKES, P. (1999). Derby and Newcastle: instrumental and variationist studies. In Foulkes & Docherty (eds.), 47–72. DOCHERTY,G.J.&FOULKES, P. (2000). Speaker, speech and knowledge of sound. In Burton-, N., Carr, P.& Docherty, G. J. (eds.), Phonological Knowledge: Conceptual and Empirical Issues, 105–129. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. FOULKES,P.&DOCHERTY, G. J. (eds.) (1999). Urban Voices: Accent Studies in the British Isles. London: Arnold. FOULKES,P.&DOCHERTY, G. J. (2000). Another chapter in the story of /r/: ‘labiodental’ variants in British English. Journal of 4, 30–59. FOULKES,P.&DOCHERTY, G. J. (2006). The social life of phonetics and phonology. Journal of Phonetics 34 (4), 409–438. GRABE, E. (2004). Intonational variation in urban of English spoken in the British Isles. In Gilles, P. & Peters, J. (eds.), Regional Variation in Intonation, 9–31. Tuebingen: Niemeyer. 360 Journal of the International Phonetic Association: Illustrations of the IPA

GRABE,E.,KOCHANSKI,G.&COLEMAN, J. (2005). The intonation of native accent varieties in the British Isles – potential for miscommunication? In Dziubalska-Kołaczyk, K. & Przedlacka, J. (eds.), English Pronunciation Models: A Changing Scene, 311–337. Bern: Peter Lang. HARRIS, J. (1990). Segmental complexity and phonological government. Phonology 7, 255–300. HARRIS, J. (1994). English Sound Structure. Oxford: Blackwell. HONEYBONE, P. (2001). Lenition inhibition in Liverpool English. English Language and Linguistics 5, 213–249. HONEYBONE, P. (2002). Germanic Obstruent Lenition: Some Mutual Implications of Theoretical and Historical Phonology. Ph.D. dissertation, University of . HONEYBONE, P. (2004). Influences in Liverpool English Koineisation. Presented at the Symposium on the Influence of the Languages of Ireland and on Linguistic Varieties in , University of Aberdeen. JONES,M.J.&LLAMAS, C. (2003). Fricated pre-aspirated /t/ in Middlesbrough English: an acoustic study. Proceedings of the 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences 4. Barcelona, 655–658. KNOWLES, G. (1973). : The Urban of Liverpool. Ph.D. dissertation, . KNOWLES, G. (1978). The nature of phonological variables in Scouse. In Trudgill P. (ed.), Sociolinguistic Patterns in British English, 80–90. London: Arnold. LASS, R. (1984). Phonology: An Introduction to Basic Concepts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. PANDELI,H.,ESKA,J.,BALL,M.&RAHILLY, J. (1997). Problems of phonetic transcription: the case of the Hiberno-English slit-t. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 27, 65–75. SANGSTER, C. (2001). Lenition of alveolar stops in Liverpool English. Journal of Sociolinguistics 5, 401–412. WATSON, K. (2005). Phonological convergence and divergence in Liverpool English. Presented at the UK Language Variation and Change Conference 5, University of Aberdeen, September 2005. WATSON, K. (2006). Phonological resistance and innovation in the North-West of England. English Today 22 (2), 55–61. WATSON, K. (2007). The Phonetics and Phonology of Plosive Lenition in Liverpool English. Ph.D. dissertation, Edge Hill College of Higher Education/Lancaster University. WATSON, K. (forthcoming). The phonetic reality of Liverpool English plosive lenition. English Language and Linguistics. WATT,D.&MILROY, L. (1999). Patterns of variation and change in three Newcastle vowels: is this ? In Foulkes & Docherty (eds.), 25–46. WELLS, J. (1982). Accents of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. WILLIAMS,A.&KERSWILL, P.(1999). Dialect levelling: change and continuity in Milton Keynes, Reading and Hull. In Foulkes & Docherty (eds.), 141–162.